United States v. Ryan Craig, 694 F.3d 509

Craig was convicted of wire fraud and failure to appear; district court ordered restitution of $12,411 and a $300 assessment.
The Government used $16,342 seized from Craig to satisfy restitution; Craig moved under Rule 41(g) for return of $3,631.
The Government sought to apply the $3,631 to a Rhode Island restitution order; the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Government’s request and denied the Rule 41(g) motion.
Craig appealed the transfer of $3,631 to Rhode Island; this court previously ordered the $3,631 returned to Craig, holding the transfer was unauthorized.
Craig then sought interest on the returned $3,631 under CAFRA; the district court denied the request and Craig appealed.
The issue before the court is whether CAFRA allows interest on funds returned after satisfying a restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFRA authorizes interest on returned excess funds	Craig seeks CAFRA interest because he prevailed on return of funds.	Government argues no CAFRA interest as sovereign immunity and no 'substantially prevail' status.	No; CAFRA does not authorize interest against the United States.

United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2000) (no implied monetary damages under Rule 41(g); no waiver of immunity)
Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986) (no-interest rule; lack of express congressional consent)
Larson v. United States, 274 F.3d 643 (1st Cir. 2001) (equity cannot override sovereign immunity)
United States v. 30,006.25 in U.S. Currency, 236 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2000) (no retroactive waiver of immunity for interest)
United States v. $7,990.00 in U.S. Currency, 170 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 1999) (earnings on seized funds not recoverable as interest)
United States v. $277,000 in U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491 (9th Cir. 1995) (constructive earnings do not overcome immunity)
United States v. Nolasco, 354 F. App’x 676 (3d Cir. 2009) (non-precedential; supports no-interest stance)